From: RWolf99@aol.com
Message-ID: <ca.c0b1248.272dfcea@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:21:30 EST
Subject: Mogas, revisited
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Mime-Version: 1.0

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
Thinking about my posting earlier today on Mogas, I had second thoughts.  I 
agree with Dan Schafer that there is an added element of uncertainty added 
with Mogas due to the wider tolerances allowed in its manufacture and the 
reduced care with which it is dispensed.  (When I pumped gas into airplanes 
to pay for my license, we drained the fuel trucks at the beginning of every 
day.  I don't think they do that at the corner gas station.  We also allowed 
a settling time between refilling the storage tanks and topping off the fuel 
trucks, and I KNOW they don't do that at the corner gas station.)  

Having said that, I do use Mogas in my Cessna, and would also do so in the 
Lancair (if I had an engine that could use it) in certain conditions.

Usually I use Mogas in the 150, but it flies (and lands) much slower than a 
Lancair and a 150 off-airport landing can likely be accomplished without 
aircraft or personnel damage, except maybe in the mountains or over downtown 
Los Angeles.  Not so in the Lancair.  Second, I stay out of the mountains 
whenever possible in the 150 for ride comfort, plus the climb performance is 
abysmal and mountain wind currents usually overpower my little aeronautical 
pony.  The Lancair can get me higher over rougher terrain, and I probably 
would not hesitate to go places where an off-airport landing would mean a 
quick call to the insurance company, right after the call for the ambulance.  
Like from Sacramento to Reno, for example, or San Francisco to Seattle.  In 
other words, I expect the Lancair to be much less tolerant of an engine 
problem than the 150.

Besides, the new engine alone in the Lancair costs more than the entire 
Cessna!

Second, I mentioned a higher occurrence of carburetor icing in the 150 with 
Mogas.  If I know I'm going IFR, I use Avgas.  I don't hesitate to fly into 
clouds if I've got Mogas in the tanks, but I wouldn't put Mogas in the tank 
immediately before launching through any more than a marine layer, where I'm 
only in the clouds for a moment.  Besides, the 150 can't handle severe 
weather anyways so I really don't go into it anyway.  Not so for the Lancair. 
 Another factor is that the Continental O-200 is a notorious icemaker and I 
don't think the Lancair engines (O-235, O-360) share this characteristic.

Shooting touch-and-goes?  Flying over flat unpopulated terrain, like from 
Lancaster to Tehachapi or down the San Joaquin valley, or in the midwest 
where you could land just about anywhere, on a nice sunny day?  Save the 
money and use Mogas if your engine is rated for 80/87.  Planning to fly hard 
IFR or over long distances where an off-airport landing is unthinkable?  Use 
Avgas.

That's how I really use Mogas, and I haven't had any problems except for the 
occasional spot of carburetor ice.

- Rob Wolf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>